Can Universalism of Religious Identity Overcome Nationalistic Biases?
At one moment the author and his friend were the only customers in a quiet hole-in-the-wall halal restaurant, and just five minutes later, to their bewilderment, the shop was getting over run by a Chinese tourist group, who took up 3/4 of the restaurant in two waves. Even as massive, money-wielding Chinese tourists have become a common sight abroad in the past decade, this one was maybe a bit subtly different. The venue was a Muslim restaurant, and the tourist group was composed fully of Chinese Muslims taking perhaps their first trips to Taiwan.
Of course, the Chinese, being those hated Chinese with no manner, proceed with their usual shenanigans of being loud, making a mess, and eating stuff that their group didn't plan to pay for. But somehow, amid the warm mutual recognition of being Muslims, followed by all-round traditional greetings of "salaam alaykum," there were none of the usual awkwardness of supposed "cultural differences" that usually come with these instances. Would that layer of commonality as followers of Islam override, or at least mitigate, sorely apparent differences in other identities?
The universality of religion may have much to do with it. If the supposed cultural differences are due to differences in economic wealth, and consequently, differences in usual residential environment, religious orthodoxy would ask its loyal brothers and sisters to simply ignore them. After all, entry into paradise in afterlife and eternal happiness is purely a function of devotion, of morality, of observing proper behavior and codes of conduct. These requirements can be achieved under any circumstances, no matter how "rough" of a life on earth.
Additionally, the teachings clear state that paradise is open to people of all colors and economic backgrounds. To discriminate a fellow devotee for any reason other than his failures in religious observances and ethics, then, would put the instigator at risk of achieving that ultimate goal of a happy afterlife. Knowing this, it is not surprising that all religious congregations, at least in theory, ought to accept devotee of any background. This is especially true in the Muslim community here, in which natives are few, and many hail from migrant labor communities that are normally social outcasts.
But do such kind words the author received at the Taipei Grand Mosque and the local Muslim Association translate into genuine feelings or just mere iteration of superficial principles? Humans are by nature discriminatory, particularly so against the socially weak who remain outside the mainstream. Even if outright racism is not expressed due to religious prohibitions, can it come out in other ways even within what seem like a tight-knit religious community? The author would like to think that racial differences can be a wedge driven into potential cracks to break apart any visible cohesion.
Religion, just like most other social institutions of global scale, are invented by a particular people and propagated through a combination of "carrots and sticks": peaceful missionary activities, threat of violence, plus financial incentives. As such, some within the community must be exalted above others, whether it be a single individual, a sect, or articular groups that appeared to have contributed more than others. Differences in these definitions of exaltation bring about calls of heresy and intra-community violence that claim so many innocent lives and disappoint many of the world's nonbelievers.
It is not hard to imagine differences in nationality becoming extrapolated enough to also fit in this mold. Some countries have longer histories of devotion, with large number of devotees, and laws/customs set officially to govern behaviors and mold cultures into ones where the devoted can more easily observe. In contract, in a place like Taiwan where Muslims are few and far in between, not even the very basic infrastructure (like "halal" labels on foods/restaurants, access to mosques/prayer facilities, basic knowledge of the general public of the religion) is present now or in the foreseeable future.
Why would it surprising, then, if a Muslim from, say, Saudi Arabia, calls a Taiwanese Muslim "not a true Muslim." The Taiwanese Muslim, despite all his efforts to be devote, may be compelled to bend some rules to survive in the local society, or worse, face outright assimilation in some ways simply for survival? Can a brotherhood be ever universal when there is no authority to uniformly set rules for the brotherhood and enforce them? Unfortunately, for a Muslim in insignificant minority, there is no easy answer than can prove their devotion in an estranged land.
Of course, the Chinese, being those hated Chinese with no manner, proceed with their usual shenanigans of being loud, making a mess, and eating stuff that their group didn't plan to pay for. But somehow, amid the warm mutual recognition of being Muslims, followed by all-round traditional greetings of "salaam alaykum," there were none of the usual awkwardness of supposed "cultural differences" that usually come with these instances. Would that layer of commonality as followers of Islam override, or at least mitigate, sorely apparent differences in other identities?
The universality of religion may have much to do with it. If the supposed cultural differences are due to differences in economic wealth, and consequently, differences in usual residential environment, religious orthodoxy would ask its loyal brothers and sisters to simply ignore them. After all, entry into paradise in afterlife and eternal happiness is purely a function of devotion, of morality, of observing proper behavior and codes of conduct. These requirements can be achieved under any circumstances, no matter how "rough" of a life on earth.
Additionally, the teachings clear state that paradise is open to people of all colors and economic backgrounds. To discriminate a fellow devotee for any reason other than his failures in religious observances and ethics, then, would put the instigator at risk of achieving that ultimate goal of a happy afterlife. Knowing this, it is not surprising that all religious congregations, at least in theory, ought to accept devotee of any background. This is especially true in the Muslim community here, in which natives are few, and many hail from migrant labor communities that are normally social outcasts.
But do such kind words the author received at the Taipei Grand Mosque and the local Muslim Association translate into genuine feelings or just mere iteration of superficial principles? Humans are by nature discriminatory, particularly so against the socially weak who remain outside the mainstream. Even if outright racism is not expressed due to religious prohibitions, can it come out in other ways even within what seem like a tight-knit religious community? The author would like to think that racial differences can be a wedge driven into potential cracks to break apart any visible cohesion.
Religion, just like most other social institutions of global scale, are invented by a particular people and propagated through a combination of "carrots and sticks": peaceful missionary activities, threat of violence, plus financial incentives. As such, some within the community must be exalted above others, whether it be a single individual, a sect, or articular groups that appeared to have contributed more than others. Differences in these definitions of exaltation bring about calls of heresy and intra-community violence that claim so many innocent lives and disappoint many of the world's nonbelievers.
It is not hard to imagine differences in nationality becoming extrapolated enough to also fit in this mold. Some countries have longer histories of devotion, with large number of devotees, and laws/customs set officially to govern behaviors and mold cultures into ones where the devoted can more easily observe. In contract, in a place like Taiwan where Muslims are few and far in between, not even the very basic infrastructure (like "halal" labels on foods/restaurants, access to mosques/prayer facilities, basic knowledge of the general public of the religion) is present now or in the foreseeable future.
Why would it surprising, then, if a Muslim from, say, Saudi Arabia, calls a Taiwanese Muslim "not a true Muslim." The Taiwanese Muslim, despite all his efforts to be devote, may be compelled to bend some rules to survive in the local society, or worse, face outright assimilation in some ways simply for survival? Can a brotherhood be ever universal when there is no authority to uniformly set rules for the brotherhood and enforce them? Unfortunately, for a Muslim in insignificant minority, there is no easy answer than can prove their devotion in an estranged land.
Comments
Post a Comment